Here’s a letter to the New York Times:
Seeking to dictate what other people eat, Elizabeth Newton opines that “In a perfectly functioning economic world, all consumers would receive perfect education about good nutrition and then simultaneously demand that fast-food companies and grocery stores start offering healthy options, thus forcing Big Food to supply what the people demand. Until that happens, we need regulation of Nestlé, Monsanto, McDonald’s and the rest of the moguls that dictate our diets” (Letters, Aug. 11).
If arrogance were calories, Ms. Newton’s letter would make a Baconator Double burger seem like a broccoli floret.
She assumes that “Big Food” earns higher profits by selling products that consumers really don’t want than by selling products that consumers really do want. This startling proposition requires for its justification more than Ms. Newton’s presumption that she knows other people’s true preferences better than do those people themselves, and better than do the entrepreneurs who, in competitive markets, earn their livings by satisfying those preferences.
In fact, the likes of Ms. Newton are simply pests preening as know-it-all “Progressives.” Her superciliousness highlights the truth of H.L. Mencken’s observation that “one man who minds his own business is more valuable to the world than 10,000 cocksure moralists.”*
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux* H.L. Mencken, “Another Long-Awaited Book” (1926), reprinted on pages 346-349 of Mencken, A Second Mencken Chrestomathy (New York: Knopf, 1995); quotation is on page 348.
And as GMU Law Dean Dan Polsby points out to me in an e-mail:
She [Elizabeth Newton] claims that the necessary precondition of liberty is omniscience! Apparently, only God can be free!
Dan’s is a deeper and better point than the one I focused on in my letter.
Also, Frank Stephenson from over at Division of Labour e-mailed me to point out that fast-food restaurants today do offer salads, bottled water, and other low-calorie fare. No one is obliged to buy a Big Mac or a chocolate shake for lack of lower-calorie options.
Share
{ 101 comments }
In a perfectly functioning economic world, where people finally see the likes of Ms. Newton for what she is – a busybody with a pen, consumers would demand less, much much less, of Ms. Newton’s writings, and she and her type would simply cease to be.
But for your view to be true, the exchange has to be voluntary. Of course you are familiar with the many sales techniques used by the food merchants to exploit human psychology into making choices that are higher margin for the seller, but not necessarily cogent decisions on the part of the buyer. Fast food is among the biggest offenders, with chemically designed scents and tastes scientifically designed to trigger parts of the brain triggered normally only when food is scarce to ‘encourage’ people to eat more, and more fatty and highly caloric foods.
Munger is starting to investigate this (Russ has en excellent podcast from a few weeks back that at least is starting to looks at the implications of transactions that are not entirely voluntary, but he hasn’t seemed to make the connection with the behavioral pysch lit that is showing just how little of human decision making is cogent). I think you really do have to ask yourself whether these choices actually reflect individual preferences, or whether they reflect the deliberate manipulation of innate instincts that are individually difficult or impossible to resist, by corporations searching for higher margins. As someone who does some work in sales, I can tell you that most corporate training in the last 15 years has really moved to teaching how to exploit individual psychology, a la Robert Cialdini. I think you are doing yourself a disservice to dismiss out of hand the role exploitation of the unconscious plays in consumer decisions. Whether you just want to call it better ‘marketing’ or deconstruct how ‘marketing’ really works to increase sales.
Sorry. I don’t buy it. Of course people try to influence each other. It’s been done since the beginning of time.
The relevant question, however, is this: “Are the choices open to people in competitive markets (and surely food retailing is highly competitive) more free and true than would be the commands and restricted set of options open to them through government regulation?”
The fact that the likes of Starbucks uses marketing techniques that influence the way people think, desire, and choose is trivially true. But that fact doesn’t come close to establishing the fact that ordinary adults are to be assumed to be so incompetent in making choices for themselves that these individuals would be made better off by having someone else force ‘choices’ upon them.
Hayek addressed this issue brilliantly in his 1961 article in the Southern Economic Journal entitled “The Non Sequitur of the ‘Dependence Effect.’” Numerous other scholars have similarly debunked the notion that people are free to choose only when they choose in some never-to-exist vacuum free of other people’s influences.
The point is that the highly addictive substance sugar today is even found in bread. The put sugar everywhere.
What does sugar do? It makes u feel like crap when you havent eaten it for a while. You go to a supermarket and all what they sell that is affordable is with sugar in it.
There is no difference between sugar and nicotin. Both very harmful to year health, and both makes ethe addict feel good when he hasnt had it for a while. I dont understand how you can be so idelogocially blind that you dont see how food addiction is ruining peoples health.
Sugar is also naturally occurring in all fruits, vegetables and pretty much everything but meat. Making bread without sugar is possible, but not particularly easy, as even grains have sugar in them naturally.
Sugar itself is not bad for you, just eating way too much of it can be. I don’t understand how you can be so ideologically blind that you don’t grasp basic nutrition.
Natural sugar has a lot of fiber in it that slows down the bodys absorption. Its still not very useful for the body, but eating fruit is ok because of the high fiber content. Drinking juice however is not good. You become fat from juice.
Again, i will mantain that sugar has no benefit except for giving a short sugar rush.
ole> “Again, i will mantain that sugar has no benefit except for giving a short sugar rush.”
That is a stupid. It is calories — basic energy. I use drinks with not much more than sugar when exercising. When I raced bikes, I depended on it.
So what if some people are stupid and drink sugar and lay on the couch? Let natural selection work its magic.
“The fact that the likes of Starbucks uses marketing techniques that influence the way people think, desire, and choose is trivially true. But that fact doesn’t come close to establishing the fact that ordinary adults are to be assumed to be so incompetent in making choices for themselves that these individuals would be made better off by having someone else force ‘choices’ upon them.”
Indeed true as is the fact that not all people buy BigMacs or Starbuck’s coffee every day – so their manipulation techniques don’t really seem to be working.
It’s also worth noting that the mere fact that these companies go to such lengths to try to convince customers to buy their stuff means that it is the customers that are in command and not the producers. If there is one thing anyone who has ever worked in sales shares then it is that they are terrified of their customers
Indeed. If big food companies are so successfully manipulative, why are profit margins so narrow?
The whole “argument” (and I use that term loosely) smacks of illogic and blindness.
It isn’t really bad as long as all of the nutrition facts/ingredients can be found on a website or somewhere conspicuous. If people fail to look up what they ate for the past year and a half, they can only blame their own lack of willpower.
Oh, but we need a newer an better regulation than simply putting ingredients on the package’s label.
Even government skools teach people how to read these labels if the people being taught are not complete morons.
“Of course you are familiar with the many sales techniques used by the food merchants to exploit human psychology into making choices that are higher margin for the seller, but not necessarily cogent decisions on the part of the buyer.”
Of course, it was only a matter of time before the obligatory “people are stupid” routine would pop up. Perhaps you should aim that big smart brain at government and bureacracies and recognize the greater threat from the arrogance of these people rather than the stupidity of citizens.
“Fast food is among the biggest offenders”
Wrong. Politicians are with their promises that they hold the true key to uptopia, only to bring misery.
“I think you really do have to ask yourself whether these choices actually reflect individual preferences, or whether they reflect the deliberate manipulation of innate instincts that are individually difficult or impossible to resist, by corporations searching for higher margins.”
You should be asking “yourself whether these policies actually reflect voter preferences, or whether they reflect the deliberate manipulation of innate instincts that are individually difficult or impossible to resist, by politicians searching for more power.”
As someone who pays attention to politics, I can tell you that most campaigns in the last 80 years have really moved to individual psychology. I think you are doing yourself a disservice to dismiss out of hand the role of consumer choice free of bureacratic and political coersion. Whether you just want to call it better ‘policies’ or deconstruct how ‘politicking’ really works to increase political power.
Regards,
Ken
What you seem to miss is that food fast food and sugar is addictive.
To say the people are acting out of free will at the supermarket is just as silly as saying that a herion addict act “rational”. People goes into the supermarkets because they feel crap before they get their daily dose of sugar.
It has has become quite clear by now that sugar is a highly addictivive substance and its the basis for the obesity epidemic. If it was true that people bought stuff in the supermarkets by “rational choice”, we wouldnt have the ovbesity epidemic. If you ask ANY obese child if he likes being obese he would say no.
How is the food industry doing it? The add sugar to almost every product..
Take milk for example. Because it was used to be believed that fat was the big cause of obesity, they removed the fat from the milk. But any processed food with low fat taste like crap. Ask any kid what he thinks about lowfat milk. It tastes awful and pale. So what do the food industry do. They add sugar to the milk. Yes, kids drink low fat chocolate milk!
The food insdustry has become masters in creating food addicts. They are no better than an average drug dealer.
Ole,
Utter bullshit. This argument has been used over and over in order for politicians and bureaucrats to amass evermore power over our lives. News flash: people can control themselves; heroin addicts do rationally choose to get high; fat people rationally choose to eat more sugar; smokers rationally choose to light up. It’s called preferences.
I eat a lot of sugar and am overweight. I prefer being this way; I’d rather be fat and eating sugar, rather than being thin and not eating sugar. I know how to eat right and lose weight, but then I’d have to start being more active and cook more. I prefer to use my time to read and watch TV. I prefer easy to cook meals that I find tasty, even the dreaded sugary foods you just assume I HAVE to eat, instead of simply choosing to eat them.
If I didn’t prefer to be this way, I would be more active. I would cook more. I would go running regularly, instead of occasionally. In short, I wouldn’t live the way I live. I can change the way I live, but I like the way I live. McDonald’s and Haagen Daaz don’t have any special power over me; I’ve cut their food out of my life before with relative ease. I LIKE to eat their food.
Regards,
Ken
So, Ole, your solution is what? Banning sugar? Putting massive signs saying “everything in this store is full of addictive sugar” at Safeway? SWAT raids on bakeries and jelly factories all over America?
I know lots of people who are very health conscious and put a lot of thought and effort into their shopping and eating. Their attitudes are becoming more and more common every day. You’re probably going to win this battle but you ought to exercise a little patience; it ain’t going to happen tomorrow. In the meantime I suggest decaf. And proofreading.
“What you seem to miss is that food fast food and sugar is addictive.”
Total bullshit.
Cautious, yes, it is true that sellers try to use individual psychology to make their products more desirable to potential consumers in order to persuade those consumers to buy the goods and services offered for sale. But, they have always done that. It is called the sales process.
For example, car manufacturers advertise their cars with pretty, sexy women next to them to take advantage of a male’s psychological desire to get the girl by buying the car. Yet, I know that the car does not come with the girl and know that a car does not attract women either. So, I control my emotions to make intelligent, rational decisions not based on the manufacturer’s knowledge of my individual psychology.
Ms. Newton is simply another “applause”-seeking statist who thinks she knows so much more than anyone else. In fact, she has successfully hoodwinked you with her knowledge of your need to “feel” protected by impugning the integrity of fast food restaurants and slandering the ability of ordinary Americans to make their own choices. Perhaps, we should regulate her ability to communicate because she uses it to influence gullible people like you into agreeing to sacrifice your, and other peoples, liberties and freedoms.
“So, I control my emotions to make intelligent, rational decisions not based on the manufacturer’s knowledge of my individual psychology.”
And further, should you choose based on that spokesmodel, or the color of the car, or tea leaves, who is Ms. Newton to supplant your process with hers?
A quarter of a billion adults in America choose a wide variety of goods and services. It takes a special arrogance for her to believe she has the one true answer for all of them.
You don’t think people, by in large, choose fast food primarily for its convenience and low price? You think they’re hood-winked into buying a good they really don’t want. Marketing can and does influence our decisions, but it’s we who ultimately decide, no? Please, tell me I’m still in control of myself!
Assuming it is indeed the case the people in general have relatively little willpower (as is the direction you appear to be heading) and are at the mercy of external influences beyond their control, rather than advocate the solution as being less freedom of individual choice and more autocratic direction from governent, I would submit that it should instead be more education of the individual so they are *not* so fickle and easily manipulated to begin with.
I’ll take enticing scents over a gun to my head any day of the week.
Pithy.
Yup, I’m not buying either. Taken to its logical conclusion, you’d think somebody would have used this marketing sorcery and potent scent injection tomfoolery elsewhere. Why would I chemically enhance burgers if the next guy could chemically enhance broccoli?
The Munger podcast is a little fuzzy in my mind, but I don’t recall euvoluntary actions relating to this. I could be wrong.
As to the rest of your “individual psychology” assessment, the other comments have spoken to it. It works both ways and I don’t want to hear about McDonalds having some first-mover advantage bc they used Hot Wheels to hook kids.
I have no desire to eat McDonald’s. At least, my digestive system doesn’t.
McDonalds used to have the best fast-food French fries. Then, they caved to political pressure and stopped frying in lard.
There’s a cafe here that still uses lard to fry their food. Easily the best fried food in town. I won’t name names, because I don’t want to crash through a picket line of food-NAZIs the next time I want some fried taters.
LOL, Bro,
Zactly correct. One day a year or so ago I got free in the early afternoon and I thought I’d surprise the bride with some good fried chicken for dinner. I stopped at Walmart and picked a gallon bucket of lard.
I didn’t tell her what I had cooked the chicken in, but when she bit into that first chicken leg, her eyes lit up, and she said, “Damn,. that tastes good, what did you do different?”
Unfortunately she is fighting her cholesterol, so I don’t fry using the lard that often, but when we do, Ai yi yi talk about tasty.
I wish I’d been there for dinner!
So, the Giant Golden ‘M’ is a type of psychological game that makes it impossible to resist? It even coerces individuals to drive their car to the mailbox rather than walk.
You are confusing the unconscious with the emotional. The producer seeks to manipulate the consumer into making an emotional decision, that they’re likely to regret later. Emotional decisions are voluntary, and there is no such thing as an ‘unconscious decision’. It is a figment of your conscious imagination.
Also, since you want to play with psychology, did it ever occur to you that emotional sales that lead to consumer regret is not a good long term strategy?
In a perfectly functioning political world, all citizens would receive perfect education about good public policy and then simultaneously demand that opinion columnists start offering good public policy recommendations, thus forcing the New York Times to supply what the people demand. Until that happens, we need regulation of Elizabeth Newton’s speech and the rest of the moguls who dictate our opinions.
Only playing devil’s advocate, but doesn’t widespread poor health qualify as an externality?
A population with a decreased lifespan creates a decreased labor force. I’d argue that the individuals at greatest risk for obesity induced mortality are probably in the prime of their career. They’re earning the highest salaries and producing the most wealth. Shouldn’t we place some value on their lives then?
When one of them dies, it results in significant upheaval for a firm. I remember a study done (I encountered it in Thomas Sowell’s “Basic Economics”) saying that when a CEO’s only child dies, there’s usually a 10-15% decline in profits. I imagine that their death or illness would have a larger impact.
I support the invisible hand, but I think this argue carries a bit of weight.
Obviously the easiest rebuttal is that regulators are political animals, so any efforts to mandate health will be frustrated by corruption.
I believe that people are intelligent, but self-control isn’t easy. Especially for the regulators.
Just about every kind of economic transanction you can think of has a negative externality. You can always find one, somewhere, if you look hard enough. For example, you posting your opinion surely has a negative externality in how it annoys other readers of your opinion. Does that mean your freedom of speech should be denied, because creates a negative externality? Medical praticies create negative externalities all the time when people die of various treatments. Does that mean medicine should be abolished? To be taken seriously as something that needs to be regulated, you need MUCH more justification than simply pointing out there are negative externalities.
Anyone that dim wouldn’t be producing the most wealth but be some sort of low-level production worker. When their health fail there are plenty of people south of the border willing to take his place.
I only see it as an extensibility if I’m subsidizing their health care. Otherwise, you’re devil’s-advocate-playing has a serious waft of central planning to it. If some CEO I don’t know what’s to eat a friggin burger, that’s his business. If he dies and the company hits the fan; well, that happens. I personally don’t wanna sacrifice liberty in order to try and socially engineer the optimization of the prime of somebody’s career.
I’m considering a new car. I wonder if Ms. Newton would be so kind as to pick the best one for me?
Do you like the Smart Car, Prius, or Volt? Those will be your choices.
Why do you suppose I would get a choice?
You are correct. I was inexact. Assuming a Trabant or Volga couldn’t be found, Ms Newton would likely limit herself to one of those cars in selecting a car for you.
The Schwinn.
The real truth is the people make choices that are not always the ones that the know it alls would like. Plenty of young women know the negatives of having babies as a teenager, but they do it anyway, because “schock” they want a baby.
Lot’s of people know absolutely that smoking, drinking, hang gliding, are risky behaviors, but they do it because they want to.
And by now I don’t believe there are any people left in the USA who do not know that fast food is unhealthy if you eat it often. But it tastes damn good, it’s relatively cheap, and it is fast!
I think the proper way to respond to these people now is just to be rude, shout them down, accuse them of being Nazis, and asking who died and made them god?
I actually think we will get more traction by that sort of hit back strategy than just trying to reason with them. We have to get other people as angry as we are.
In one study, people who smoked over-estimated the effects of smoking on their health. On average, they though that lifelong smokers would lose 9 years of their life, when in reality they lose 6-7 years of their life if they smoke from age 21 onwards. People know the risks, they JUST DO”NT CARE.
One of my pet peeves is when someone (usually a liberal/progressive – sorry but it’s true) uses the argument that if we could just educate people the right way, they would make better decisions. Usually of course, they mean make the decisions they want others to make.
I always use my sister-in-law’s behavior to counter this argument. As a respitory therapist she is well aware of all the downsides of smoking – what could be more educational than spending 12 hour days working with people who suffer from COPD, emphysema, lung cancer, etc. But on every break she and almost every other person working in her ward step outside and puff away.
Maybe they have a purpose to their smoking. After all, they are securing careers for future health professionals who in turn will pay for their social security benefits. In which case, if we just got rid of social security then all unhealthful behavior would vanish!
The diatribe of such people is absurd. I work for a large well-known company who is kind enough to give us all breakfast, lunch and in some other locations, dinner. At every meal, we have a wide range of options, some very healthy, some not at all. For instance, every morning there are scrambled eggs, some sort of breakfast meat (bacon/sausages generally), a potatoe dish-style thing, oatmeal, granola, yogurt, fruit juices, etc… Everyone here is highly educated and we are given plenty of information regarding our food and nutrition. Every item on the menu is labeled from inviting green, to scary red according to some sort of nutritional computation. There are talks given on nutrition, a gym is made available to employees etc… They even give us smaller plates in order to encourage us to limit our food intake and perform some amusing social engineering experiments putting the healthy items first in the hope that we will have filled our plates with greens by the time we get to the steak. This environment is as close to the one described by Miss Newton as possible. Yet, every morning, most people who eat here have some version of bacon and eggs. At lunch, the “red” items consistently enjoy high popularity. The chocolate chip cookies are gone in the blink of an eye while the bananas linger sometimes all day long. Sure, many of us do try to be somewhat careful about our diet, but we do not shun the dreaded “red” items. Is Miss Newton going to explain that we really are just a bunch of idiots who are somehow manipulated by our corporate overlord into eating high-cost steak instead of the cheap rice and salad?
WE need a Govt program that ‘helps’ people like in the ‘Twilight Zone’ the movie and the short labeled ‘Cat’s eye’. This is where large amounts of people are hired to watch you. Should you crack and engage in bad behavior, they grab a loved one and put them in a room with an electric floor that zaps them. That will teach you.
Now to be fair, there are some locations in the US which have particularly poor food choices. For instance, there are places where the 7-11 is the only place where you can shop for food within miles. Is it that nobody finds it profitable to place a store that sells vegetables and other produce? Partially. What does not help is that many cities are for some reason reluctant to allow such stores to arise in poorer neighborhoods.
“What does not help is that many cities are for some reason reluctant to allow such stores to arise in poorer neighborhoods.”
Oh bull crap. you are making the same stupid mistake that Elizabeth Newton makes.
Store owners will build stores where they think they can make a profit and not lose their shirts to theft, and enjoy some degree of security in the operation of their business and security for their customers.
The reasons that there are food deserts in large metro areas is because the people there are like the goats in the Sahara, they created the deserts they now have to suffer. In those so-called food deserts, if you will carefully research the history of the area, they once had food markets and other retailers; but, that was before the people in those areas became convinced that they were owed food, drink, clothes and dry goods. When they couldn’t buy them they stole them, and stole them to such a degree that profitability was lost. You’ll also find that those so-called food deserts are high crime areas now. Main stream retailers long ago closed down and moved out when theft became prohibitive to profit, and security was lost to constant neighborhood crime.
I guarantee you that the so-called food deserts are created by the human goats that live there. And any retailer stupid enough to move back in without the goats being cleaned out, will suffer the same fate.
vidyohs, lotta truth to what you say, but I think P.F. has a point with regard to Wash D.C. Super Walmarts are pretty kickass when it comes to providing affordable and healthy food options. I’m not completely up to speed on the issue, but I know there’s been lots of opposition to D.C. Walmarts. I don’t know how much of that opposition is from Lib-nancies and local shopowners (protecting they turrrfffff) versus opposition from ‘desert goats’ as you politely state.
Link (with a terrible rap song attacking WalMart): http://walmartfreedc.org/
“I don’t know how much of that opposition is from Lib-nancies and local shopowners (protecting they turrrfffff) versus opposition from ‘desert goats’ as you politely state.”
The anti-Walmart action in DC is definitely libtard inspired. Anti-Walmart speech and action nation wide has its roots in the idiocy of the looney left scriptures.
PF made no point worth considering.
you are exactly right. And, in addition to the theft and security issues, food deserts are typically low income areas where local customers don’t spend enough to keep many stores in business. A high income neighborhood allows a higher concentration of stores.
It’s hard to understand the resistance to Walmart in poor neighborhoods. They provide jobs, a huge variety of products, and low prices. Other than the effect on existing local merchants, I can’t imagine what the problem could be.
I know… I mean, when the local government refuses to give Whole Foods or Wallmart building permits to create a store in one of those “food deserts”, it is obviously the fault of those “goats” who live in that area. As we all know, people who live in the shittiest parts of town have huge amounts of political power.
Prom
Political power? I guess you missed this item.
Here’s an excerpt explaining the views of one local politician:
[risk of shoplifting]
“Brenda Speaks, a Ward 4 ANC commissioner, actually urged blocking construction of the planned store in her ward at Georgia and Missouri avenues NW partly because of that risk. Addressing a small, anti-Wal-Mart rally at City Hall on Monday, Speaks said young people would get criminal records when they couldn’t resist the temptation to steal. “
Has this fool woman been in a grocery store ever in her entire life? The “healthy options” section is otherwise known as the “produce section” and they’ve all had one at least each of the 35 years I’ve been in this country.
I can’t say that about the worker’s paradises I’m sure she imagines she prefers.
She doesn’t appear to be a someone who encumbers herself with facts.
Everytime I walk in a modern grocery store, I stand and stare in awe at what capitalism has brought me. The colors! The variety! It is absolutely incredible.
Yes, I know what you mean. The number of choices is mind boggling.
Ms. Newton speaks as if ‘healthy’ foods are not readily available in grocers everywhere; in fact some grocers brand themselves that way. Having grown up on a farm, I studiously avoid them. Second, Ms. Newton assumes regulation is the answer to my decidedly and determinedly high caloric, red meat diet.
She is sadly mistaken on both counts. These bothersome meddlers have already made fantastic beef difficult to find and harder to prepare. If she thinks people like me will find it impossible to procure the food I like because she makes a law against it, she is living in a reality that has more than her dictated food preferences as a fantasy.
In my fantasy world, folks like Ms. Newton are not allowed to teach children and young adults.
Having grown up on a farm, I studiously avoid them.
May I ask why? I don’t get the connection.
The organic wave panders to fear at drastically higher prices, from free range chickens to the condemnation of livestock and feed accelerators.
Not even the quality argument is true in any general sense. In fact, the opposite is just as likely to be true.
It is like the bottled water craze and about as rational. Why pay more when the staple is much more inexpensive and most times better?
The only time I pay more for produce is at a farmer’s market for vegetables, because it is the only place they can legitimately leave them on the vine longer.
Gotcha. Thanks.
When you walk inside a grocery store, the very first set of foods is the Produce section. In each store, The produce is located away from the ‘unhealthy food’. From Meijer, Walmart, Target, Fry’s, Safeway, Albertson’s, Basha’s, Fresh&Easy, Sprouts, Kroger…………. in some, the entrance ways have been located centrally to prevent theft making the Produce located away from the entrance…….. But, overall, most have produce one of the first sections you reach……..
Nobody’s proved to my satisfaction that “fast food’ is unhealthy at all. Meat, lettuce, cheese and bread, the ingredients of a typical cheeseburger, with maybe a slice of tomato thrown in and an order of fried potatoes seems pretty non-poisonous. If there is something unhealthy about making this a regular dietary feature, it’s probably the lifestyle that accompanies it for many, a trip to the burger palace and back by automobile, followed by an evening with the fanny parked on the divan in front of the TV, with some snacks. Active, fit people seem to be able to eat anything and stay healthy.
Fast food is highly addictive. One reason is that 80 % of sugar goes directly to the liver. The same with alcohol. Alcohol is a sort of sugar as well. 80 % of it goes directly into liver. They say people get a “bear belly”, but it also something called a “sugar belly”. Sugar is not consumed by the bodies cell like clucogen is.
Btw, lettuce is not very good for you either because it has got very litle fiber.
Anything that increases the nergy levels in your body feels good. Excercse increase energy levels and one can become easily addicted to training. Coffee increases energy levels and one easily become addicted to coffee. And sugar increases energy leve and is addictive as well.
Ole,
Fast food is NOT addictive. People CHOOSE to eat at fast food because these foods are tasty and low priced.
Regards,
Ken
Funny, if sugar was so addictive, you would think people would just buy 5 pound bags and eat it with a spoon, or start mainlining orange juice. Hell, just eat nothing but oranges with sugar on them!
But alas… apparently the best way to get a sugar fix is through fast food.
I mean, seriously Ole, have you thought this through at all? There are so many easier ways to get sugar than fast food. When I see people carrying around a half pound of candy just so they can get their fix I will believe in the idea that sugar is addictive in a reasonable sense.
|> if sugar was so addictive, you would think people would just buy 5 pound bags and eat it with a spoon
I believe these are called “Pixy Styx”. They’ve been around since the 50s. That’s why they’re readily available at all McDonalds and is the best-selling food item of all time.
robert_o,
Pixie sticks aren’t 5 pound bags of sugar. They are a couple of ounces of sugar, mixed with other flavoring. Pixie sticks are so fantastic because of that extra flavoring, not the sugar.
Additionally, because there are many sugar based candies doesn’t mean people are addicted. It simply means people like candy.
Regards,
Ken
“I mean, seriously Ole, have you thought this through at all? ”
He is a libtard. So “no.”
Have you perhaps considered that when you call people “libtards” you do nothing except convince anyone who hears you that you are an arrogant ass no matter what one’s political positions might be.
“Fast food is among the biggest offenders, with chemically designed scents and tastes scientifically designed to trigger parts of the brain triggered normally only when food is scarce to ‘encourage’ people to eat more, and more fatty and highly caloric foods.”
Can I smell this from my house?
Something about actually choosing to go to the FAST FOOD place itself suggests a certain level of self-determination.
Its has become quite clear by now that sugar is a highly addictivive substance and its the basis for the obesity epidemic. If it was true that people bought stuff in the supermarkets by “rational choice”, we wouldnt have the ovbesity epidemic. If you ask ANY obese child if he likes being obese he would say no.
How is the food industry doing it? The add sugar to almost every product..
Take milk for example. Because it was used to be believed that fat was the big cause of obesity, they removed the fat from the milk. But any processed food with low fat taste like crap. Ask any kid what he thinks about lowfat milk. It tastes awful and pale. So what do the food industry do. They add sugar to the milk. Yes, kids drink low fat chocolate milk!
The food insdustry has become masters in creating food addicts. They are no better than an average drug dealer.
Having few such choices allowed, mostly by a lack of global trade, the good people in Somalia have been freed from such evil food industries. They have fallen out of that frying pan.
“Food Addiction” sounds like a First World problem to me. Choose differently.
Ole, you said, “The food insdustry has become masters in creating food addicts.” Nah! It is easy to demonize others in order to continue an irresponsible life. But, individual liberty and freedom require individual responsibility. If you do not like being fat, then quit eating more calories than you burn off everyday through exercise. Or, if you enjoy eating more than you should, get out and exercise more frequently and for longer periods of time. The formula for losing weight is very simple. But, for simple-minded statists, it is so much easier to blame others rather than take responsibility for their own lives and do what needs to be done.
You said, “They are no better than an average drug dealer.” Again, no. Demonizing others is merely a psychological technique to avoid taking responsibility for your own weaknesses and problems. Be an adult and get to the gym and eat smaller portions.
The real problems is not food addiction or the “evil” food industry. Rather, the problem — and it is a good one to have — is that America’s prosperity has made food plentiful and cheap. And, I do not want this inexpensive availability to change just because certain people refuse to take responsibility for themselves and certain others have a need to control.
Perhaps, we can have Al Gore set up a fat farm and all the whiny irresponsible statists can join. That would solve everybody’s problem. Al would get the “applause” he seeks and be able to control a large group of people. Those who join would lose weight and not have time to whine and be irresponsible. And, the rest of us could live our lives without having to listen to either of the other two.
Re: Greg Webb: When Al Gore declares that he is a vegetarian and sworn off meat because it directly or indirectly causes the burn of fossil fuels – then, we can agree to restricting freedom in the name of expanding freedom. And if Al Gore were to stop using energy from ALL sources, then we can all have him become King and Ruler of the World.
Greg Webb, so if the food industry tries to take advantage of my weaknesses, wouldnt it be my personal responsibility to fight back at them? Why are they allowed to poison people? Well if poisoning other people as long as they do it volunteerily is ok , then im sure you supported Dr Kevorkian.
Im sorry, but just cant accept this crazy ideology of yours.
Ole,
“wouldnt it be my personal responsibility to fight back at them?”
No. You do NOT have the right to use government force to restrict other people’s actions because you claim to be unable to control yourself. I can’t grope some chick, then claim I couldn’t control myself because she was dressed provocatively. I can’t use the forced of government to prevent her from dressing how she wants. I have to act like an adult and control myself.
Regards,
Ken
“No. You do NOT have the right to use government force to restrict other people’s actions because you claim to be unable to control yourself.”
I do have the right to retaliate against people who are knowingly trying to harm me. And for that i should in the real world use the legal system. It has been done before, against the tobacco industry.
Ole,
Offering to sell you something NOT “knowingly trying to harm [you]“.
The lawsuits against the tobacco industry were an injustice.
Regards,
Ken
Ole, you said, “so if the food industry tries to take advantage of my weaknesses, wouldnt it be my personal responsibility to fight back at them?” No. Criminal laws prohibit the violent conduct that you imply. You should take personal responsibility by going to the gym and limiting your caloric intake.
You said, “Why are they allowed to poison people?” They are not allowed to do so, and they are not doing so. By saying so, you are exhibiting irrational antisocial behavior. You should take responsibility for yourself and quit trying to demonize others for your personal failings.
You said, “then im sure you supported Dr Kevorkian.” Your statement has no basis in fact or logic, which is further evidence of your irrational antisocial behavior. Really, you should take responsibility for yourself and quite trying to demonize others for your personal feelings.
You said, “Im sorry, but just cant accept this crazy ideology of yours.” Ah, the typical debate tactic of the statist. You do not have any coherent, logical arguments supported by objective, verifiable evidence so you resort to unfounded personal attacks to demonize me. Again, that is irrational antisocial behavior, which is typical of the statist and his need to “feel” protected because he cannot control his emotions — whether in discussing issues or at dinner.
You can fight back by staying away from addictive food pushers, And yes, I supported Dr. Kevorkian. People should be able to make their own choices.
Your inability to make your own, and your demand that someone else make them for you is pathetic.
Are you just a troll or what?
Re: Ole – So true. I just saw the Food Police impound sugar and a huge load of processed food – arrest the drivers of those trucks who were sneaking them in from across our borders … I imagine the next thing we need to do is declare sugar as a controlled substance that is as dangerous as alcohol and crack and heroin and cocaine. I think you should call for prohibition – first for alcohol (too many deaths, people who should not drink are encouraged to drink by TV, magazines, bill boards) – and also for cigarettes, sugar, Big Macs and anything that may cause people to be anything other than “average” in height and weight. We cannot have a world where people are different and making choices that are not what the educated make. We must have total control – it is only through taking away people’s freedom to choose that we will give them freedom. Right. Got it.
“We must have total control – it is only through taking away people’s freedom to choose that we will give them freedom.”
If people really had the freedom to choose, they would choose not be obese. Your premiss is that individual people have access to the same information as the food industry and that they really have “free will”. Btw,part of their indvidual freedom is to ask the government to remove the drug dealer away from their neigbourhood.
Short-term desires often overwhelm long-term desires. I know I should save money and calories by not going to Starbucks, but sometimes I do. I also know I should go to the gym instead of watch TV.
Obese people know that short-term decisions have long-term effects. They choose to satisfy their short-term desires. That’s a legitimate choice. Who are you to say otherwise?
just another idiot do-gooder scumbag trying to save us from ourselves. Hey a-hole, here is a thought, mind your own damn business and stop worrying about what we voluntarily put into our own bodies.
Who the hell died and made you god?
Well, isnt business supposed to do a social good for society? Its not a social good if people get morbidly obese from eating too much.
You are all making these false assumptions that people really know that the bread they are eating give them sugar cravings.
Its not true. If everybody had access to the same information, its quite anotehr thing. Smoking is ok as long as you are aware of the science. What is not ok is if the tobacco industry has information that says that nicotin cause lunge cancer and yet they still try to “hook naive people on it.
If eating at McDonalds was a really free choice, which means that McDonalds informed its customers of all the dangers of addiction to their products, everything would be fine. But there are not yet health warnings on burger. If someone sells a toxic or explosive chemical, they have to inform about the potential harm.
“Well, isnt business supposed to do a social good for society?”
No. It is supposed to maximize profits.
“You are all making these false assumptions that people really know that the bread they are eating give them sugar cravings.
Its not true.”
You are making the false assumption that people don’t know the dangers of their actions. Then you make the further false assumption that politicians and gov bureaucrats care about and act in support of citizens.
The rest of your comment can be applied equally to government actions. The government routinely lies to the public in order to gain benefit. Since these lies result in policies that carry the force of law (like being forced to buy insurance you don’t want; McDonald’s can NEVER make you buy anything), the lies told by government officials are far more dangerous than anything done in the private sector.
For example, the obesity “epidemic” in this country started at the same time that the government introduced the nutrition pyramid. The government is routinely wrong about nutrition, like eggs and butter. Why do you ignore this and focus solely on businesses? You seem to live in some la la land where you think government officials have the best interests of the citizens at heart, when they clearly do not.
Regards,
Ken
Ole,
It seems to me that your argument is based on you assuming an answer to your question, and then you look for reasons to explain why the evidence does not support the answer you wanted.
For example, you state that if people were making a “rational choices,” they would not be obese. Thus, you assume that people must not be making rational decisions. However, it could also be that rational people could choose to be obese, given their constraints.
You use the example of asking an obese child if they like being obese. I would agree that most would say that they do not. However, all you are doing by asking this question is determining that people want the benefits of an action, when you ignore that action’s costs. I would also imagine that if you asked the obese children if they would be willing to do the required amount of exercise, and give up the required types and quantity of food, necessary to no longer be obese (the cost of their actions), they would choose to continue to be obese. In fact, given that these people make these decisions, we can feel pretty confident that people do feel the benefits of being obese out weight the costs. In economics, this is the axiom of revealed preference.
It seems to me that you are attempting to develop an explanation for why people would make decisions that differ from those that you would make. It seems like the only explanation that you want to accept is that they are being manipulated. I think a far more likely explanation is that people are heterogeneous and place different values on what they want in life.
You are making important points. Some of the more important lessons that economics teach us are
In fact that
- both benefits and costs need to be considered
- stated preferences are often very far from the real preferences
This reminds me of the old economics joke:
Two economists are walking past Carnegie Hall. One turns to the other and says, “I always wanted to learn to play the piano.” The other economist replies, “No you didn’t.”
“In fact, given that these people make these decisions, we can feel pretty confident that people do feel the benefits of being obese out weight the costs. ”
I completely disagree.
If you shoot heroin into your arm, you will experience a pleasure that is 100 times stronger than anything you feel in real life. So there is no doubt there are short term benefits of heroin. But do the heroin addicts really feal the short time pleasure outweigh the long time costs? Or are they simply ADDICTD?
And for sugar addicts, who probably dont know about their own addiction, are they REALLY making these long term calculations? I would say they are not.
The alternative is to have central bureaucrats decide which choices are the “right” ones, and enforce those decisions at the point of a gun.
Of course, you assume that the deciders will agree with you. What if they don’t? Think of the most noxious, disagreeable, hated pundit you can imagine, and consider giving him the authority to decide which of your choices are right and which are wrong.
I’m constantly amazed that people will argue so strongly against freedom.
Addicted does not mean without choice. If it did then there would be no ex-heroin/alcohol/&c addicts and Jared would still be grossly obese. Or are you implying that no one ever overcame their own foibles without the gentle, guiding hand of government bureaucrats and prison time?
Ole,
“If you shoot heroin into your arm, you will experience a pleasure that is 100 times stronger than anything you feel in real life.”
Every time I got high, I got high in real life, not some imaginary life.
“But do the heroin addicts really feal the short time pleasure outweigh the long time costs?”
Of course, there could be. The only thing we do know is that YOU less know about what’s better for a heroin addict than the heroin addict. Being high and even being addicted could very well be what’s in the long term best interest for a person. The fact that you completely disregard a person’s preference for being high rather than sober only shows how little you care about others.
“are they REALLY making these long term calculations?”
Are you? The financial collapse we recently experienced was caused by regulations enacted by people who claimed they knew the “long term” risks. Clearly, they did not. Increasing the power of the government is ALWAYS short sighted and NEVER takes into account the “long term calculations”.
Regards,
Ken
Don’t blame the food industry, blame the government. they subsidize the production of high fructose corn syrup, so that it is very very cheap to use.
Don’t they meddle in the sucrose biz to?
Are you just copy-and-pasting this nonsense every so often? Reading your comment once is more than enough. Do you have anything to actually contribute?
Debating what should be on the menu assumes fallacious arguments and typically ignores other regulations that contribute to our ‘obesity’ problem. Here are 3:
1. Obesity can be solved by eating only ‘healthy’ foods.
2. Zoning dissuades exercise by short walks to work and store and pub. But it also helps destroy communities, which increases crime.
3. Licensing restrictions inhibit entrepreneurship and even neighborhood food production and meal preparation even while it reinforces legal and tax strata. All increase the cost of living.
Especially given that unemployment is so high, it may be the right time to reconsider some of our existing regulations rather than making more to solve the problems regulation helped create.
Government probably overbuilt roads pandering to the auto industry. Other kinds of transportation likely suffered, such as walking/biking. Yes, I really like my car too!
ok site. b * nd vigi..lates.c says ‘recesssion when growth falls below 2%.”
.
see ‘its debt stupif,’ and ‘no real growth w/o ‘simulus’. U .S.
gdp w/out simulus may be -2%.minus two per. = “West gov’s
cant pay prin, only temp make interest payments.” S .a.m.’s
total borrowings $199t. c. two hund tril (TOM).”
ok site. b * nd vigi..lates.c says ‘recesssion when growth falls below 2%.”
.(sent once to Cafe Hay)
see ‘its debt stupif,’ and ‘no real growth w/o ‘simulus’. U .S.
gdp w/out simulus may be -2%.minus two per. = “West gov’s
cant pay prin, only temp make interest payments.” S .a.m.’s
total borrowings $199t. c. two hund tril (TOM).”